By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent address to the nation, former President Trump blamed current economic issues on the opposing party. He also claimed his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, made him give the address and boasted about military initiatives. Trump’s speech was followed by public mockery and a Marist poll revealed low approval ratings on his handling of the economy. Furthermore, the address included false statements about inflation and immigration, contradicting his past actions while in office. The White House later clarified details regarding a “warrior dividend” to be given to military service members, the funding of which was unclear.
Read the original article here
Trump says Susie Wiles made him do the primetime address where he spent 18 minutes yelling about his ‘accomplishments.’ It’s a headline that almost writes itself, doesn’t it? The sheer audacity of it all. It’s a familiar story, though. Someone, anyone, besides him, has to be responsible when things don’t go according to plan. That primetime address, the one where he seemingly spent an eternity listing off supposed achievements, was, according to him, not his idea. He was “made” to do it.
The whole thing smacks of a desperate attempt to deflect blame. It’s like a child who trips and then points the finger at the rug. The address itself, from what I gather, was a collection of exaggerations, outright lies, and the kind of bombastic rhetoric we’ve all come to expect. It reportedly wasn’t well-received, and now we’re supposed to believe that it was all Susie Wiles’ fault. It’s a classic move: if the performance flops, blame the director. If the cake is burnt, blame the baker. He just has a hard time taking responsibility for anything.
The narrative emerging is that he was unwilling to do the address, but somehow, Wiles, the woman who runs his campaign, strong-armed him into it. We’re asked to believe that a man who has, for years, styled himself as the ultimate alpha, the one who “makes deals,” the one who “never backs down,” was somehow manipulated into doing something he didn’t want to. It just doesn’t quite fit the image he’s so meticulously crafted. It’s almost comical.
The implication is clear: the address wasn’t a reflection of his own decisions, his own priorities, or his own assessment of the situation. It was a product of Wiles’ machinations, a puppet show orchestrated by someone else. And the “achievements” he spent nearly twenty minutes touting? Apparently, those were Wiles’ accomplishments, too. Or so we’re led to believe.
The comments surrounding this situation paint a picture of a man who appears to have lost touch with reality, with a crumbling empire. Construction of a ballroom is a matter of national security? It does seem as though there’s an underlying sense of desperation to try and stay relevant. The idea of him being “made” to do anything also highlights a perception of weakness, a contrast to the strongman persona he often tries to project. It doesn’t exactly instill confidence in his supporters.
It’s tempting to see this whole thing as a strategic move. Perhaps Wiles realized the address could be a disaster and preemptively set up a scapegoat. A convenient way to shift the blame and preserve his image. It is also an attempt to control the media narrative.
There’s also a more cynical reading, that Susie Wiles is subtly maneuvering from within, perhaps even sabotaging his efforts. With each passing day, it seems more and more apparent that this is a fractured operation. Maybe she’s trying to get fired, or perhaps she’s quietly taking control, or maybe there are other things going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to.
And then there’s the whole “he’s being controlled by a woman” angle, which is bound to resonate in certain circles. It plays into the MAGA base’s insecurities, the idea that their champion is being undermined by a woman, and the fragility that the man of the hour apparently shows.
Ultimately, the fact that he’s even claiming this is telling. It’s a sign of weakness, a lack of accountability, and a willingness to throw anyone under the bus to protect his own ego. It also exposes how little respect he has for his base. They will believe him regardless of the facts.
The whole situation is a masterclass in deflection and blame-shifting. Whether it’s true or not, the fact that he’s peddling this narrative speaks volumes about his character and his approach to leadership.